Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Some of us feel that it is tyranny to force people to do something against their will. Ya know, tyranny was something that our founding fathers fought against so it's kinda important.
Ten or so years ago I got an offer to work as a contract software developer for a very, very high hourly rate, provided I was willing to spend 6 months in Istanbul. AND provided I didn't mind that who I was working for was RJ Reynolds Tobacco company. I turned it down because I don't choose to work abroad and because I did not want to support the efforts of RJ Reynolds to make cancer sticks.
Was that tyranny? No, it was just that my personal choice and convictions did not fit with RJ Reynold's requirements.
It's the same with the county clerk. That clerk may choose not to work as a county clerk if the requirements of the job don't coincide with her beliefs / choices. However what she may not do is refuse to do her job. That would be like me accepting the contract with RJR and then insisting that they stop making cigarettes and/or allow me to work from home before I will show up for work. I could call the client requirements "tyranny" but somehow I don't think that would be an impressive argument.
Ten or so years ago I got an offer to work as a contract software developer for a very, very high hourly rate, provided I was willing to spend 6 months in Istanbul. AND provided I didn't mind that who I was working for was RJ Reynolds Tobacco company. I turned it down because I don't choose to work abroad and because I did not want to support the efforts of RJ Reynolds to make cancer sticks.
Was that tyranny? No, it was just that my personal choice and convictions did not fit with RJ Reynold's requirements.
It's the same with the county clerk. That clerk may choose not to work as a county clerk if the requirements of the job don't coincide with her beliefs / choices. However what she may not do is refuse to do her job. That would be like me accepting the contract with RJR and then insisting that they stop making cigarettes and/or allow me to work from home before I will show up for work. I could call the client requirements "tyranny" but somehow I don't think that would be an impressive argument.
No it's not the same thing because you are talking about making a decision beforehand. This is a person who already had an established job and because the courts ruled for immorality, they are being asked to perform a duty against their religious convictions. A more fair comparison would be that you have been at the same job for 20 years and suddenly your boss says you must go cheat on your spouse or quit. That's the job duty now.
No it's not the same thing because you are talking about making a decision beforehand. This is a person who already had an established job and because the courts ruled for immorality, they are being asked to perform a duty against their religious convictions. A more fair comparison would be that you have been at the same job for 20 years and suddenly your boss says you must go cheat on your spouse or quit. That's the job duty now.
You should change your forum name to jeffoffbase, because you are so indeed off base with things.
The woman took the job. The woman is an agent of the state. HER personal beliefs shouldn't factor into what the LAW says, it's NOT HER job to push her "moral" beliefs, her job is to do what the STATE says and what, HERE'S THE BIGGIE, THE SUPREME COURT SAYS.
If she doesn't like it, she should step down and let someone who is willing to follow the law do the job.
I'm not sure if this is the same lady, but another female county clerk who refused to issue marriage licenses was told she would be punished either by being fined or jailed for contempt, but she couldn't be fired. The judge said the reason was that because she was an elected official, she couldn't be fired because the people had voted her into office, so she couldn't be removed until the people voted her out. WTH? For one thing, I wasn't aware that a county clerk was an elected official and even if clerks are, refusing to work should be basis for anyone's termination, elected or not.
No it's not the same thing because you are talking about making a decision beforehand. This is a person who already had an established job and because the courts ruled for immorality, they are being asked to perform a duty against their religious convictions. A more fair comparison would be that you have been at the same job for 20 years and suddenly your boss says you must go cheat on your spouse or quit. That's the job duty now.
So? Her job changed and the law changed.
The State, and County does not wait until people retire to enact laws. Nor do they grandfather/mother employees to exempt them from following the law. The Court has ruled.
A more fair comparison would be that you have been at the same job for 20 years and suddenly your boss says you must go cheat on your spouse or quit. That's the job duty now.
That's a silly comparison. It's not the boss that decides what the county clerk must do. It's the law.
Every.single.public.servant who swears an oath knows that they are swearing to uphold the law. (And, very often, the Constitution*.) That's their job duty. Do fundamentalist fire fighters get to pick and choose in your world?
"I'm not going to put water on that one, Chief. It's a same-sex couple and my Bible-based beliefs say I'm allowed to discriminate. And if you make me you're a tyrant! Sic Semper Tyrannis!!"
*Which, hopefully, you'll remember is a document the founding fathers created. Because they, unlike the fundamentalists who really like to throw the word around when they don't get their own way, actually understood tyranny.
Last edited by DewDropInn; 08-13-2015 at 09:12 PM..
No it's not the same thing because you are talking about making a decision beforehand. This is a person who already had an established job and because the courts ruled for immorality, they are being asked to perform a duty against their religious convictions. A more fair comparison would be that you have been at the same job for 20 years and suddenly your boss says you must go cheat on your spouse or quit. That's the job duty now.
Well if you want to go with that scenario, my option is to quit. People quit their jobs all the time because they don't like them anymore or the job changes or doesn't pay enough or someone hires an empty suit to run the place.
It's really the prerogative of the employer to define or change job descriptions. It's then the prerogative of the employee to stay or leave.
This isn't a situation where there's a reasonable expectation that nothing will ever change. Markets change. Constituencies change. Economic conditions change. Demand changes. Businesses / agencies adapt and job descriptions change. People flex with that or not.
So, the sexually deviant can continue to call Christians of all types, "Fundies", not to mention that this also applies to other non-Christians who believe that marriage is between one man and one woman which obviously shows ignorance of religion which might explain the celebration of sexual deviancy. OK, that makes sense to me. Obviously if you have limited to no knowledge of God-based faith, you wouldn't have any problem defying the sinful nature of a homosexual marriage.
It's either ignorance of Biblical law or having sinned to the point of being of a reprobate mind that one cannot fathom why another would not want to be endorsing a sinful union. Trying to force others into the web of sin that homosexual marriage is paramount to the evil that this agenda embraces.
Very few people take this homosexual marriage thing seriously. You can keep saying that they do, but they don't. I have sympathy for the mental ill but the agenda is going too far. The mentally ill should not be taking away one's right to religious freedom. They used the same tactics to get homosexuality removed as a mental illness: http://www.behaviorismandmentalhealt...hat-went-away/
I do think they need to distinguish between marriage and homosexual/gay marriage since it is two entirely different things. Notice when it is spoken of that there is always an adjective or two before the word "marriage", same-sex, gay.................Not "marriage".
The bible is meaningless to me. Do you have any real arguments?
Why the personal attack on her? The fact that she has divorced and remarried does not mean that she can't recognize that marriage should be between a man and a woman.
I thought the religious view of marriage was "till death do we part".... So are you saying that is only if it bolsters your argument?
Location: In a little house on the prairie - literally
10,202 posts, read 7,934,547 times
Reputation: 4561
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanspeur
I thought the religious view of marriage was "till death do we part".... So are you saying that is only if it bolsters your argument?
Vizio ignored that question the last time it was asked in this thread.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
